if you're already looking at issue6715, then I don't get why you're asking.. ;)

quoting from msg106433:
"For my code, feel free to use your own/any other license you'd like or even public domain (if the license of bz2module.c that much of it's derived from permits of course)!"

The reason why I picked LGPLv3 in the past was simply just because liblzma at the time was licensed under it, so I just picked the same for simplicity.
I've actually already dual-licensed it under the python license in addition on the project page though, but I just forgot updating the module's metadata as well before I released 0.5.3 last month..

Martin: For LGPL (or even GPL for that matter, disregarding linking restrictions) libraries you don't have to distribute the sources of those libraries at all (they're already made available by others, so that would be quite overly redundant, uh?;). LGPL actually doesn't even care at all about the license of your software as long as you only dynamically link against it.

I don't really get what the issue would be even if liblzma were still LGPL, it doesn't prohibit you from distributing a dynamically linked library along with python either if necessary (which of course would be of convenience on win32..)..

tsktsk, discussions about python module for xz compression should anyways be kept at issue6715 as this one is about the tarfile module ;p